' KHALIL-UR-REHMAN KHAN, J.---These two Petitions (Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.1193-L of 1998 and 1194-L of 1998 are directed against order dated 1-7-1998 of the learned Judges of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby the Constitution petitions filed by the petitioners and others were dismissed in limine.
2. The petitioners had appeared in B.A./B.Sc. Annual Examination held by the University of the Punjab in May, June of 1997 and were declared 'fail' in two subjects mentioned against failure statement issued by the respondent/University to them. The petitioners were required to appear in all the subjects and were not given the credit of two subjects in which they had appeared and had secured pass marks. They sought direction that they should have been instead asked to appear in those subjects only in which they had failed or had remained absent.
3. Regulation 1 of the B.Sc. (Pass Course) Examination was amended by the Academic Council at its meeting held on 25-6-1995, which amendment was to come into force w.e.f, the Annual Examination of 1997. The amendment was firstly approved by the Vice-Chancellor in exercise of the powers vesting in him under section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act, 1973 and was then approved by the Syndicate on 13-11-1995. Before amendment in Regulation 1, it was provided therein that if a candidate gets exemption after having qualified subjects carrying at least 400 marks in the Annual Examination he could appear in the Supplementary Examination. By the amendment, a condition was put that supplementary examination shall be open to those candidates "who secure 33% marks in individual papers and 40% in aggregate excluding the failing subject'. The validity of the amendment was challenged in the High Court, inter alia, on the grounds that the impugned amendment which was not incorporated in the instructions given to the Examinees at the time of submission of their admission forms for the Annual Examination, 1997, has put the future of the petitioners in jeopardy for they had planned their studies for the examination keeping in view the Regulation as it stood before the impugned amendment; that the impugned amendment in the Regulation was never communicated even to the Colleges in which the petitioners had studied; and that the impugned amendment made by the Academic Council could not have been approved by the Vice-Chancellor under the emergency powers vesting in him under section 15(3) of the University of the Punjab Act as there was no emergency. It was added that the Academic Council had framed the amendment in the year 1995 and it was to come into force from Annual Examination of the year 1997, and as such no emergency existed so that the amendment could be approved under emergency powers by the Vice-Chancellor of the University.
4. Learned Judges of the High Court in the impugned order repelled these contentions. Hence these two petitions for leave to appeal.
5. Sardar Muhammad Latif Khan Khosa, learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated these very contentions before us. He referred to the letters issued by the Principles of some of the colleges affiliated with the Punjab University which are to the effect that "as a policy matter University should have given wide information of the Notifications Nos.106/G.B. And 107/G.B. In the Colleges before the examination of 1997 B.A./B.Sc. Which the University did not do, so that the affected candidates have mentally prepared themselves accordingly." Learned counsel emphasised that as the candidates were not duly informed of the enforcement of the amended Regulation, the candidates who have appeared in the examination keeping in view the unamended Regulation, are entitled to be treated in accordance with the Regulation as it existed before its amendment. His plea in nutshell is that the amended Regulation should not in all fairness be implemented as the University has failed to give notice to the affiliated Colleges and its students of the amendment made by the Academic Council and approved by the Syndicate and as such it is not fair to deprive the petitioners of the concession available to them, under the Regulation originally existing in Volume H of the University Calendar at pages 121 and 191, for the years 1977 and 1978.
6. The plea raised is factually not correct, and the letters of the Principals of some of affiliated Colleges placed on record also do not reflect the correct position as University did inform all the affiliated Colleges of the University of the amendment made by supplying through post a copy of the amended Regulation. A copy of the 'certificate of posting' to the Principals of affiliated Colleges is 'Exh.R.7' which was placed before the High Court by the University. The Controller of Examination was also summoned by us with record and he appeared before us, and reiterated the aforenoted position and stated that the copy of the Regulation/Notification, referred to in the letters of the Principals of the Colleges affiliated with the University, was supplied to them by post and later on these Principals admitted that the same was available in their files but they remained unnoted. We are also informed that 1,30,000 candidates had taken the Examination under the amended Regulation and except for few, who had approached the High Court by filing the Constitution Petitions, none else has come up with the plea that the amended Regulation was not in their knowledge. The fact that the said amended Regulation was not in the personal knowledge of the petitioners cannot be made basis for claiming concession to 'take the Examination under the Regulation which existed before its amendment. The plea that the Vice-Chancellor could not have accorded the approval in exercise of powers vested under section 15(3), of the University of the Punjab Act is of no consequence as the Syndicate admittedly had approved the Regulation as early as on 13-11-1995, almost two years before the coming into force of the impugned amendment.
Two years period given to the candidates to adjust themselves, gave sufficient time to take the examination in accordance with the amended Regulation.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any justification to take a view different from the one which prevailed with the learned Judges of the High Court. Leave to appeal is refused and the Petition is dismissed.